On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:28:00 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@...> wrote:
> > Then we're back to having people do dobin || die, which is precisely
> > what we're trying to solve.
> 
> Not really. Can't dobin be like so:
> 
> fail() {
>     if hasq strict FEATURES; then
>         die "$@"
>     else
>         ewarn "QA Notice: ${@}. blah foo"
> }
> 
> dobin() {
>     dobin.sh "${@}" || fail "dobin failed"
> }

Like I said... A lot of these utilities have to work with xargs.

> >> It should not be necessary to define a new EAPI to make sure
> >> packages are not broken.
> >
> > Yes it should. It's a change in behaviour in functionality upon
> > which quite a lot of things depend.
> 
> This is not functionality. It is the lack thereof. Making this part of
> an EAPI makes it opt-in, which it shouldn't be. It is important for QA
> and should be mandatory for all ebuilds.

That's not how it works. We've seen plenty of times in the past
that forcing QA by making users' systems break (which is how far these
things get before they're fixed) just leads to lots of annoyed users.
EAPI, plus slowly moving things towards new EAPIs on version bumps once
newer EAPIs are widely supported, is the clean way of doing this.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh